Senator Dan Patrick's Charter School Love Bill Leaves Public Schools Holding the Empty Bag

Categories: Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Tale of two dailies today, I guess. Our own Dallas daily, the Morning News, takes a kind of hey-why-not approach to a bill introduced by Houston GOP state Senator Dan Patrick that would divert more money from state funding for public schools to charters. The Austin American Statesman, meanwhile, gives its readers a story explaining maybe why not.

Patrick has been flogging his charter school ideas in Austin beneath the flags of liberty and choice for all, which might seem like tough ideas to argue with. He says 100,000 families are lined up waiting to get their kids out of lousy public schools and into charters, and he wants the state to help them out by creating more charters.

Ah, but as always with the charter school idea, here's the catch: they take their money straight out of the purse of public education at a time when Texas lawmakers are already doing everything they can to pick that pocket.

danpatrick.jpg
State Senator Dan Patrick
The Statesman tells that story: Advocates and defenders of public schools are rushing to Austin to plead with the Legislature not to wound public schools even more deeply than they already have by diverting even more scarce resources to privately operated, publicly funded charter schools.

Bur even from the mouths of public schools champions, I worry that they shy from telling the real story on why charters can become such a pernicious problem for public schools. I'm talking about the problem of cherry-picking and dumping. Maybe in Tea Party Texas any mention of that issue sounds too much like the dreaded "class warfare," but it's what the public school people worry about most when they know they won't be quoted.

This is a simple idea. I dare somebody to weigh in here right now and argue with it. The most challenged students are far and away the most expensive to teach. We are talking about special ed, of course. But we are also talking about all those kids who through no fault of their own are born into all of those bad circumstances that the Tea Party Taliban loves to sneer at.

Their parents are not merely "uninvolved." They're on crack or meth. Their families move every whip-stitch, one jump ahead of the unpaid rent. These are the kids who saddle schools with all kinds of expensive security and instructional problems.

There is not one chance in hell that anybody is going to try to get them into a charter school, and there is less than not one chance any charter school would ever take them. But they are kids. They did nothing to deserve their dismal fate. And the public schools must deal with them.

The argument I hear quietly from public school advocates -- who are way too shy about saying this louder -- is that the cost of educating those expensively challenged and challenging students is heavily subsidized by the per-pupil funding that school districts get from state and local sources. And this may be another reason why the public school people are so chary on this topic: They may sense political bonfires ahead if the parents of the easy kids ever get wind of the amount of money diverted every year from their own children to the high-cost special cases.

But this is the underlying big reality about charters. People like Senator Patrick want to cut an even bigger hole in the public school purse to drain money into charters. The charters will always find one way or another to cherry pick their students, even if it's only by the fake-fair system of waiting for families to apply, which excludes kids from crap families.

The cherry picking makes things worse and worse for the publics, which get left with a tougher and tougher demographic to serve. And then there is this question: How can we look ourselves in the face morally when we are deliberately if gradually engineering an abandonment of the very children who needs us most, the ones who will never get a helping hand in life if not from our hand?

Here's a notion to toss around. If all these people want private schools but they don't want to pay for them privately, how about this as a workaround? Let's take a chapter from the oilfield wildcatters in the way they split up a jointly explored oilfield. One company draws a line across the field. The other one picks the side it wants.

Let's be like the Morning News and say, sure why not have more charters. Why not divvy up the money and make the public schools pay for the private ones? Sure. But after we divvy up the funding, allow the public schools to chose the students who will be sent to charters.

Hmm? I think I am not hearing enthusiasm for that from the charteronians. I think maybe we can all guess why.


My Voice Nation Help
58 comments
friendlytxn46
friendlytxn46

So your answer to poor people in sh__ty public schools is, "Sit down, shut up and take what we give you"? Poor parents should have no choice where to send their beloved kids? They have to put them in desks next to the kids of crack heads because liberals demand "fairness"? The current system is NOT working for many people at all. It's time for change and choice. The people are demanding it.

CHINA
CHINA

@mikewesteast VERY GOOD OPINION FROM MALE WHITE ELDER! CAPITALISM ONLY FOR BEST #1%BESTOF 

GOAL IS MAX PRODUCT-WHATEVER COST/BENEFIT CALCULATION! THANKYOUS FOR HELP MIKE! 

MikeWestEast
MikeWestEast

The only cherry picking charter schools do is attitude and desire. You make it seem like charters are skimming off the National Merit Scholars or rich kids. They are not. Those kids simply want to be there and showed above average motivation. They might actually do homework if assigned, show up to class. To my knowledge, we have no constitutional requirement to evenly distribute students that have no desire to be there except fool around. Maybe at its base level, that is what public schools must do, house them for 16 years. What benefit does society from distributing that load? Public schools ought to be segregating them too.

Too much of premise is that non-chartered public schools as opposed to chartered public schools have a special status. They do not. They are tools to achieve goals. The goal is to turn out the max product that meets the standards. Whatever collection of tools turns the most product is the winning solution.

Guesty
Guesty

Jim:  I think this is probably the best discussion of the charter school issue I've seen.  First one to really get at the issue (the folks that complain about fraud, etc. only needs to look at the ISDs to see that charters have no monopoly on that).  I don't think charters are about destroying public schools, but they probably do end up taking kids only in the top 80% while turning away kids in the bottom 20% (I don't think they are taking the "top" students, just avoiding the "bottom").  

But it also raises a question that I think we all have trouble answering: How should we divide resources between kids who are difficult to educate (perhaps through no fault of their own) and the kids who are not. You can look at this through the magnets (talk about cherry-picking), charters, defacto magnets within public high schools (e.g. the college bound kids at Woodrow), etc.  Would we be better off if we focused a little more attention on the top half, even if that means leaving a few more in the bottom half behind?  Is there a better way to deal with the kids who are difficult to educate than throwing them in with everyone else and forcing a teacher to choose between working at her slowest student's pace or leaving him behind?

I don't know the answer.  I think that everyone should have an opportunity, but I don't like the idea of our schools focusing their resources on the bottom 20% when there are a lot of kids who would do very well if classes weren't taught to the lowest common deliminator and frustrated kids who have already given up weren't around to be a bad influence.  

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

Simple choice. Educate the challenged now or support them in prisons or through welfare programs later. I grew up in an era where there were only public schools and private schools. The idea of private entities operating publicly funded charter schools is inane. Rather than letting them cherry pick, force them to select schools by lottery. If they can't handle special education, then they are not fulfilling their public responsibilities and shouldn't receive public monies.

MichaelMacNaughton
MichaelMacNaughton

Many charter schools, not all, are simply real estate holding companies that, as a required by-product, try to educate cherry-picked kids. They are public schools but without local oversight by a democratically elected school board.  (Yes, you have representation via the State government but how well is that working for you?)  Some legislators and judges have told me, off the record of course, that this is part of a planned destruction of public education.  Why?  Lots of money in "them thar halls of education".

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

Or, an even better idea, we can get the government out of the educating business entirely, and tell the charter schools that if they accept vouchers, they have to accept ALL the vouchers, and they have to try to educate the kids before they expel them for behavior. 

The government has shown that they can't educate children.  The more involved the government is (i.e. the bigger the district) the lower the scores.  So stop trying to do what you aren't getting done any way.  Make it charters, top to bottom.  Break up the current public schools, privatize them, and give it a shot.  Keep the compulsory education rules (I'm not a fan of them, but this is compromise) and tell the crackheads to send their kids to SOME charter school  It's incredibly unlikely to be worse than the public school the kid would have ended up in anyway.

DISDTeacher
DISDTeacher

@MikeWestEast As a parent of A+ kids, I understand what you are saying.  As a taxpayer, not so much.  Charters are not good for needy kids or communities.  Period.

The solution is magnets.  Kids stay in the public system and the tax dollars stay with them.  Needy kids are subsidized.

And if we aren't willing to subsidize needy kids, geez.  Who are we?

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

Great thinking here if we were talking about auto parts. Not so great for children.

ataynay
ataynay

@Guesty We don't divide it.  Private schools operate with private funds.  Public schools operate with public funds.  Period.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

It's a tough one. As I think you agree, the smart kids and the old-fashioned plain old good kids got rights, too.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@MichaelMacNaughton It's simply another version of deregulation of a utility.  Screw the people and get gov't backing private firms.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@everlastingphelps Public education is arguably the great American success story.  The idea started here, and arguably is what brought us out of the Gilded Age.  Furthermore, it was expansion of education, to universities that brought us out of the Great Depression--via the GI bill of WW2

bifftannen
bifftannen

@everlastingphelpsWhat are your qualifications for teaching children? If you're answer is "I'm a parent", well you're deluded as a homeschooler.
 

The idea of privatizing education is terrible. Education should never be for-profit.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

"the government has shown it can't educate children"

This is the most inaccurate, asinine statement ever to come out of your anus, err mouth phelps. And that is quite a high threshold to reach.

There are many thousands of students who graduate each year from public schools across the nation who are shown to have tremendous intellectual ability. Looking at state universities such as our own UT, not to mention Cal or Michigan, really the list can be quite long, these government run schools have a great history of accomplishments.

The government has and can educate students, most often doing its best when the politicians and others get out of the way and let the educators do their job.

titusgroan
titusgroan

I'm always amazed by people who rail against government accountability, but eagerly agree to sign away their money and rights to private companies (like NTTA, charters, HOAs) who are even less accountable to them.

Los_Politico
Los_Politico

@everlastingphelps Charters and vouchers are different things. You'll notice this piece by Jim doesn't even use the word. I doubt you read it though. Oh and charters are "government schools" you dittohead.

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@JimSX Dear Old Out of Touch Liberal Silly-head, your generation and their brand of liberal government sought to relieve parents of the burden of actually parenting their offspring.  Now, you are dealing with the fallout from parents who chose to parent their offspring and have no desire to see their kids be forced to attend school with upstart drug dealers, pimps and other scumbags.  And you've got a right to arrange their child's education to their whim since they are paying sizable taxes for said education.  I'm sorry those chickens have come home to roost.  It's annoying and down right startling, I know.

Guesty
Guesty

@ataynay @Guesty 

We do divide it in the way I suggest, every day.  

Within public schools, decisions have to be made whether to pour money into magnets, AP programs, and other areas that focus on high achievement, or do we pour resources into remedial programs and other programs designed to reach a hand down to help kids who are having problems.  It's too simplistic to say "both," because you still have to decide on allocation, and there quite clearly is not enough to go around.  Just like individual teachers have to decide how to divide their attention between the kids who are at the front of the pack and need challenges or to slow the pace for kids who are behind to keep them from being left there.  

Jim's point (at least as I interpreted it, I think fairly)  is that charters get the advantage of not having to make the same choices because they avoid dealing with the kids who are the hardest to education. Public schools may spend $10,000 per student, but they have to spend much more on each of the kids with the most problems (this is true even setting aside special education), meaning they have less than $10,000 to spend on each of the others.  Let's say they spend $20,000 on average for each of the kids who are in the bottom 20% (I'd guess it is actually more than double), that would leave the public school with only $7,500 on average for the other kids.  The charter, on the other hand, doesn't have to deal with the bottom 20% and can spend an average of $10,000 for each student that would only get $7,500 of resources in public schools.  Thus, if you assume resources matter at all, the charter kids might do better than they would have in public schools, but public schools are worse off because they have on average a more difficult population to educate with the same amount of funding per student (note that the public school does end up with the same funding per student as it had before).  

Your answer seems to be to ignore the issue and simply pump the money into public schools.  But it is a dangerous game for public school advocates to ignore the issue.  The parents we need to be on board supporting public schools will abandon them entirely if they feel like schools are not concerned enough with serving the needs of their own children as they are with serving the needs of the kids who are having the most problems.  If public schools don't figure this out and meet the demands of those parents, they will find themselves without an educated class of parents willing to support their schools.  And without that group of parents, the DISD is doomed to failure.  

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@JimSX but all the studies show that the smart and good kids get educated regardless of what you do.  So, you focus on those who are left behind.  I think we need to relax the curriculum and relax the testing--though accountability is important.  It seems to me the most important kids are those that are underachieving, and many of them need to be engaged in a different way.  

I was never a great student, though I loved learning as much or more than any in the class.  I hated doing boring homework, though I was more likely to do homework that I didn't understand.  Many kids like myself excel in advanced courses, but flounder in medium classes, and actually become a distraction.  

Other kids are more tangible learners, and should be steered into applied engineering and some tangible activities.  We should be teaching from theory to practice and from practice to theory, different brains respond to each differently.  


If we could do that, we'd have shrunk the problem of the challenged students.  But, some will be difficult to ever reach.  A tech or applied school would give them a better education that more closely reflects the job market.  For many, and physical outlet is helpful, and the applicability of their experiences would do more for them than the 3 Rs.  

Education is too top heavy, too much administration, too much review of what was taught, which has no pedagogic value.  We've made schools too academic, as such many kids inherently know that their time there will do little to prepare them for life.  We need to understand and develop vocational programs that aren't for losers or the left behind, but that offers the most challenging computer, science and applied math in the school.  There are many roads to Rome, why do we only pave one, and consider and condemn the others as inferior?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@scottindallas @everlastingphelps The idea of compulsory public education did not start here.  Our model is based on the Prussian model, which, in turn is founded on principles dating back to Socrates.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@bifftannen @everlastingphelps homeschoolers reliably test at a higher level than the government educated population. Beclown yourself more, please.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mavdog @Los_Politico  Mav, you're misinterpreting what phelps stated.  LolPol, you're harping on an irrelevant and very minor point.  Vouchers and charters are both different things: catch is, they both have the same goal.  The goal is to somehow line up educational tools and venues with academic abilities and needs of the kids.  Charters are one way to do so, as are vouchers.

The real fix has nothing to do with either charters or vouchers.  The real fix is to engage the family in the educational process.  Some will say that is a culturally impossible task, others will say (after adjusting their tinfoil hats) that the educational system is exercising a hidden agenda against christianity by actively disengaging parents from the process.  While there may be anecdotal evidence pointing to both of these scenarios, neither is an absolute truth.  In the meantime, we waste time and resources on standardized academic tests and relaxing social and cultural standards.  We rail against any attempt by school districts to instill order, consistency, uniformity and discipline (necessary in the pursuit of public education, indeed one of the reasons for having a public education system at all) across the educational system and then rail against the system for failing the kids.

The biggest obstacle to reforming the American education system is the apparent inability of Americans to face reality.  Not all children are academically equal.  Not all children 'deserve' to go to college.  Indeed, for some, college will be a waste of time and money, perhaps a trade school or journeyman program would be a better fit.  I knew this as far back as elementary school, when I could see that some kids struggled with things that came easy to me, and others seemed to breeze through things I found quite difficult.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdogYou just said the same thing I did: "doing its best when the politicians [i.e. GOVERNMENT] and others get out of the way and let the educators do their job."

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@Los_Politico

I was thinking of saying people like me have always been vouchers against vouchers but decided that argument might be taken as ad homonym.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@Los_Politico I know what they are, and the key feature is that they are semi-privatized.  They account to their sponsor, but they are run like a private school (the same way the NTTA runs like a corporation even though it is accountable to the state.)

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@j.walter.miller

It doesn't matter what their parents did or did not do for them. They are still with us. Our society expends huge resources dealing with social dysfunction. What if all those people were fully functional productive citizens instead of expensive prisoners? The jury is in on this. The research has been done. It is possible to take kids from the very worst backgrounds and have them testing better than rich white kids at the end of third grade, for the same money being expended now, The guy who was most on to of that was George W. when he was our governor. I gather that you get a kick out of name-calling, and for all I know you are 13 years old, but if you are an adult and you really care about this stuff, you need to climb out of your trench and look around. When we get every kid literate and numerate at the end of third grade, we turn our whole society around. You may relish the idea of abandoning what you consider to be inferior children because it makes you feel superior. What you fail to see when you look in the mirror, however, is that you are the one who is sub-rationall and driven entirely by stereotypes and emotion.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

It doesn't matter what their parents did or did not do for them. They are still with us. Our society expends huge resources dealing with social dysfunction. What if all those people were fully functional productive citizens instead of expensive prisoners? The jury is in on this. The research has been done. It is possible to take kids from the very worst backgrounds and have them testing better than rich white kids at the end of third grade, for the same money being expended now, The guy who was most on to of that was George W. when he was our governor. I gather that you get a kick out of name-calling, and for all I know you are 13 years old, but if you are an adult and you really care about this stuff, you need to climb out of your trench and look around. When we get every kid literate and numerate at the end of third grade, we turn our whole society around.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@Guesty @scottindallas @JimSX maybe the magnets are wasted, or too exclusive.  It's the middling students, who often don't perform much below level, but that perform below their capacity that are present the greatest opportunity for the greatest improvement.  I don't disagree that really troubled kids cost a lot, nor that developmentally delayed are expensive.  And, the extra intervention provided them is important.  

Perhaps these should be funded differently, with money coming from SSDI, and the families as income allows.  It's certainly not a simple problem or solution.

Guesty
Guesty

@scottindallas @JimSX 

Do those studies show that average students come out the end of the process the same no matter what you do with them?  I highly doubt that.  If you really believe this, then why do we bother putting money into magnet schools, AP courses, etc.?  I can't believe that you think these relatively expensive programs that are focused on kids who are already reasonably smart have no effect at all.  

I also think you underestimate the challenges of the kids we are talking about.  The experience you described would likely put you into the top 10% of the vast majority most DISD schools.  In other words, you are the kid who loses the resources because they are diverted to kids who have real challenges (not just are bored or different style learners).    

The challenging kids we are talking about don't read at a middle-school level in high school.  They can't do basic multiplication or division.  They are often violent, often abuse drugs early in life, and never believed that education would make a difference in their lives and gave up long ago.  They would have no more interest in votech than AP calculus because they have no desire to learn anything or ever to be employed.  Sadly, no one has ever figured out a way to educate these kids.  I'm not saying it can't be done, but I am saying we haven't found the formula yet.  There isn't a school system in the world that has successfully educated a population of kids remotely resembling what the DISD confronts every day.  

DISDTeacher
DISDTeacher

@everlastingphelps Any student with a 1-on-1 tutor should excel.  

Also, all reliable data shows that SAT scores are clearly aligned with family income.  In order for a family to homeschool, there has to be enough income for 1 of the parents to stay home and do the homeschooling.  So maybe those homeschoolers' test scores reflect their family's income level more than the homeschooling.

I'm a pretty conservative person but even I have to admit that government education seems to be doing just fine in Highland Park.  The problem in DISD isn't that it's government education, it's corrupt mismanagement and, currently, a disastrous superintendent.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@everlastingphelps govt charges less "rent" for education than the private system.  It's true at all levels of education.  Rentiers are most concentrated in the utilities, when gov't takes them over, or regulates them, the rents are lower.  Whereas, gov't can not compete in the free market,

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@RTGolden1 @bifftannen @everlastingphelps I think biff is obviously a government educator protecting its rent seeking.

DISDTeacher
DISDTeacher

@everlastingphelps @DISDTeacher @scottindallas @RTGolden1 @mavdog @Los_Politico Here's the reason behind the 15% rule:  kids who are failing are likely to drop out.  If they drop out, the district won't get money for them.

I disagree that it's a symptom of warehouse instead of educate.  Instead, I think it is a symptom of greed on the part of the trustees, the Superintendent, the education reform machine, and construction/IT vendors.

If at the state level there was legislation rigidly and severely limiting non-teacher salaries and paying for anything other than utilities, you'd see a big change.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@DISDTeacher @scottindallas @RTGolden1 @mavdog @Los_Politico This is another of the perverse incentives.  The idea was, "let's push on the 'bad' teachers with more than 15% fail rates so they will stop being bad."  Instead, what the incentive actually brings is the non-bad teachers having to inflatie bad students' grades, and the bad teachers stopping teaching all together and just handing the grades out.

It's another symptom of the warehouse instead of educate syndrome plaguing public schools. 

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog 100% in favor of more vocational training.  The idea that everyone should go to college is part of this whole big ball of perverse incentives.

DISDTeacher
DISDTeacher

@scottindallas @RTGolden1 @mavdog @Los_Politico In DISD, a teacher is hassled to the nth degree if more than 15% of her students fail.  

Additionally, teachers are now questioned, in response to a "report" that recently came out, if maybe we are writing too many referrals on Black and Hispanic kids (which is literally 96% of the kids in the district). 

Then there are the grading rules: kids get almost unlimited opportunities to make up failed work until they finally score a 70.  Kids who blow it off get a packet around the end of the year; all they have to do to make up for a SEMESTER'S worth of missing/failing work is fill in the blanks in the packet.  You simply don't know the reality.

Zero tolerance?  Criminal penalties? Too strict?

Not in DISD.  Not by a long shot.  Hence the state of DISD.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@RTGolden1@mavdog@Los_PoliticoRT wrote " We rail against any attempt by school districts to instill order, consistency, uniformity and discipline"   

I can't agree with this.  We've made school infractions criminal.  We've passed zero tolerance policies and other stringent rules that are arguably too strict.  Further, we're left educating these kids in alternative schools, which no doubt adds to the cost of educating them.  I don't dispute anything else you've said, but that.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mavdog On the goals part, you're splitting hairs whereas I was trying to just get the cowlicks to stay down. I stated what the basic goal of both programs is:  to somehow line up educational tools and venues with academic abilities and needs of the kids.  Your argument was against the methodology both of them use to achieve those goals.

Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything you put down, with minor deviations on some of the details.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@primi_timpano A) I don't see the point you're making with cherry picking that particular part of my comment; it was a tongue in cheek jab at those who share similar beliefs as myself, while not being able to temper those beliefs with actual knowledge.

B)  Now you're sounding like General Pratt, with his kill the Indian, save the Man, philosophy.  Sure he had progressive, altruistic goals: incorporate the Indian into White American Society.  Problem is his preferred method was to destroy their culture and language in order to achieve those goals.  Or maybe I just missed something in your post?

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

@RTGolden1 @mavdog @Los_Politico

RTG1 said in a cherry picked part:

the educational system is exercising a hidden agenda against christianity by actively disengaging parents from the process.

Nothing will educate 99% (a made up number) of the kids from the worst of broken homes. At some point parents should forfeit their rights to subject their children to the devastation of their lives. Public schools need to have boarding facilities. Let the parents visit, but take these children from their parents' hell.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@RTGolden1

No RT, I disagree, there was no misrepresenting of Phelps. He rails that "government can't educate children" and followed up with "I'm no fan" of compulsory education. You make your bed, you lay in it. And the he whines when he is called out on it, sheesh...

You state that "vouchers and charters" have the same goals, I disagree. Vouchers can in theory be directed to both public or private institutions, while charters are an adjunct of public institutions. Charters are as close to a for-profit intrusion into public education as I've seen. While vouchers are in place to instill competition into the marketplace I'm not sure charters do the same.

The idea that public schools attempt to separate parents from the educational process is not credible; however, the reality is that public schools do not have the means to compel parents to involve them in the educational process. That we agree is the crux of the problem with education in our country. The saying "it takes a village to raise a child" may be credible, the saying "it takes a determined parent to educate a child" should be right up there

I do not have a problem with standardized testing, we need a mechanism to evaluate the performance of the teachers and the administration. As for discipline, you're preaching to the choir my friend.

You and I agree on the need of schools to not just focus on being prep schools, there is a huge need for trade/vocational alternatives. Although there is a clear momentum of fewer assembly jobs (the machines assemble more and more), someone needs to assemble and maintain the machines. We need car mechanics, we need plumbers. These jobs do to need the college prep courses, and the sooner the schools understand this and provide alternative course tracks the better.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog I also conceded compulsory education. That's another part we agree on.

I want everyone to notice -- whenever mavdog fucks up and finds out that I agree with him, he moves the goalposts and tries to find some way to shit on the thread. And he think I'M the unreasonable one.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

No phelps, you did NOT say that at all. Your attempt to dance around your ridiculous comment will not work. You're guilty of posting an ignorant statement that makes the rest of what you say irrelevant.

Compulsory education is one of the major contributors of America's success economically. To dismiss this important component is the utmost in simplicity and sheer ignorance.

Los_Politico
Los_Politico

@everlastingphelps @Los_Politico

A sponsor like PrimeTime? Yeah, real accountable. You still haven't demonstrated proficient knowledge of the difference between vouchers and charters. Nor have you explained why you injected the term into the discussion.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...